On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:23 AM Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just a heckling from the peanut gallery... > > Am 29.01.22 um 07:08 schrieb Elijah Newren: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:55 AM Johannes Schindelin > > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> Meaning: Even if stage 3 is missing from the first conflict and stage 1 is > >> missing from the second conflict, in the output we would see stages 1, 2, > >> 2, 3, i.e. a duplicate stage 2, signifying that we're talking about two > >> different conflicts. > > > > I don't understand why you're fixating on the stage here. Why would > > you want to group all the stage 2s together, count them up, and then > > determine there are N conflicting files because there are N stage 2's? > > Looks like you are misunderstanding Dscho's point: When you have two > conflicts, the first with stages 1 and 2, the second with stages 2 and > 3, then the 2s occur lumped together when the 4 lines are printed in a > row, and that is the cue to the parser where the new conflict begins. > Dscho did not mean that all N 2s of should be listed together. Ah, so...I didn't understand his misunderstanding? Using stages as a cue to the parser where the new conflict begins is broken; you should instead check for when the filename listed on a line does not match the filename on the previous line. In particular, if one conflict has stages 1 and 2, and the next conflict has only stage 3, then looking at stages only might cause you to accidentally lump unrelated conflicts together.
